Solution to Priest Sex Abuse Scandal

[Crumpy]

The Bishops of the U.S. seem to have taken a zero-tolerance position towards priest abusers.

It doesn’t totally reflect what we recognize in American justice, but the priests are removed from duties when even a complaint is lodged against them. Their case is turned over to the civil authorities immediately, if I’m not mistaken. Their reputation is tarnished forever without due process. That is a problem.

But, we know that the problem is larger than that. We know that bishops were involved in moving pedophile priests around to cover up their abuses.

I don’t recall ever seeing this suggestion, so I’m making it here. I think the faculties of the bishop and / or the superior of a priest in a religious congregation should be suspended, too.

I think we need to root out the problem, and if there is a problem, it involves the bishop, ipso facto. If a priest is abusing underage persons, then the bishop is, too.

**We have to put pressure on the bishops and on Rome to do the right thing. It’s not THEIR church alone, it’s our church, too.

Somehow, too, the liability of the Church must be eliminated for cases of child sex abuse. It isn’t the Church which is committing the abuse. It is deviant individuals. They, and they alone, should be held accountable. Public school teachers who abuse children are liable alone. Their school districts are not liable – or I haven’t heard such a thing. The church should be like that.

I’m beginning to realize something about myself, that my patience is not infinite. We don’t have to live this way. Somebody should be listening to us. They have to do better. It is not an option.**

 

[baltobetsy]

So you’re saying that the punishment should extend to the superior of the priest who offends for the first time, having given no sign beforehand of his being an abuser. The bishops are now supposed to be mind readers? How would this put a stop to the zero tolerance policy? It seems it would increase it.

 

[phoenixrrt62]

The Bishops of the U.S. seem to have taken a zero-tolerance position towards priest abusers.

It doesn’t totally reflect what we recognize in American justice, but the priests are removed from duties when even a complaint is lodged against them. Their case is turned over to the civil authorities immediately, if I’m not mistaken. Their reputation is tarnished forever without due process. That is a problem.

But, we know that the problem is larger than that. We know that bishops were involved in moving pedophile priests around to cover up their abuses.

I don’t recall ever seeing this suggestion, so I’m making it here. I think the faculties of the bishop and / or the superior of a priest in a religious congregation should be suspended, too.

I think we need to root out the problem, and if there is a problem, it involves the bishop, ipso facto. If a priest is abusing underage persons, then the bishop is, too.

**We have to put pressure on the bishops and on Rome to do the right thing. It’s not THEIR church alone, it’s our church, too.

Somehow, too, the liability of the Church must be eliminated for cases of child sex abuse. It isn’t the Church which is committing the abuse. It is deviant individuals. They, and they alone, should be held accountable. Public school teachers who abuse children are liable alone. Their school districts are not liable – or I haven’t heard such a thing. The church should be like that.

I’m beginning to realize something about myself, that my patience is not infinite. We don’t have to live this way. Somebody should be listening to us. They have to do better. It is not an option.**

I’d agree with you, generally. However, if a person (no matter who he/she is or does) is suspected of abusing a minor entrusted to their care, they should be removed while they are being investigated…should they be presumed guilty without due process? Well, no…but they would need to be removed from working with kids until the matter is cleared up, anyhow…

I’d venture to say that the church in a general sense is being attacked b/c people in the church hierarchy knew of the abuse of some priests, and instead of immediately turning them over to civil authorities, they were shuttled from parish to parish, only to abuse more minors. THAT is just shameful…

If the public school system were attempting to cover one of its teachers who was suspected of abusing a student, instead of turning said teacher over to the civil authorities, well, then, THEY need to be investigated as well, and held on charges, you know?

You know…the Catholic church isn’t the only org that tends to sweep **** under the rug…I have a-well-really strong opinion about abuse b/c I was sexually molested by a foster family’s friend…told a teacher about it, and this teacher did what NO OTHER teacher did prior to him, went out on a limb and reported it to the city DPW…wanna guess what happened? Nothing. Pfft. Poor teacher.
No good deed goes unpunished, hum??

Oh, yeah…I wanted to say I do disagree with one part of your post…I don’t think the persons who are-what? the superiors?-of said child molester should be removed from duty unless they KNEW of the person’s abuse and tried to cover it up…you know, a federal and state background check might be squeaky clean b/c the perp never got caught…so how would they know otherwise? I don’t think THAT would be fair…

 

[Crumpy]

Well, the point of this thread is that the bishop should be automatically suspended and investigated with the priest-abuser.

We need to protect the children, and the Church is not bound by the due process of the courts.

The whole point is to remove bishops who were abetting the priests AND to serve as a deterrent to bishops protecting priests in the future.

Their “brotherly” love cannot countenance this betrayal of the priestly vows. The bishop is supposed to be connected to his diocese in a very strong way, to the people, as well as to the priests.

That hat they wear is supposed to indicate that they are spotless and above reproach. The bishops should know what’s going on in their diocese.

 

[mark_a]

Well, the point of this thread is that the bishop should be automatically suspended and investigated with the priest-abuser.

We need to protect the children, and the Church is not bound by the due process of the courts.

The whole point is to remove bishops who were abetting the priests AND to serve as a deterrent to bishops protecting priests in the future.

Their “brotherly” love cannot countenance this betrayal of the priestly vows. The bishop is supposed to be connected to his diocese in a very strong way, to the people, as well as to the priests.

That hat they wear is supposed to indicate that they are spotless and above reproach. The bishops should know what’s going on in their diocese.

Even excluding politics within the Church, I just don’t see how your plan could have a reasonable chance of working. Because if I were a priest, I would avoid like the plague being promoted to bishop .

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Even excluding politics within the Church, I just don’t see how your plan could have a reasonable chance of working. Because if I were a priest, I would avoid like the plague being promoted to bishop .

Not a bad idea. As I recall many of the saints fought against being made a bishop. It is an office that should be reluctantly taken. I think it was Bishop Chaput who said that as a priest he was God’s man; now he must be the Church’s man.

 

[Newbie2]

I recently finished a book “Before Dallas: The U.s. Bishops’ Response to Clergy Sexual Abuse of Children” by Nicholas P. Cafardi.

amazon.com/Before-Dallas-Bishops-Response-Children/dp/0809105802/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1288010941&sr=1-1

(It can be found for much less at some of the overstock or Catholic bookstores…I got it for about 5 bux)

Anyway, I thought the author did a good job of attempting to understand what happend and how it happened without trying to excuse anyone’s behavior, particularly of the Bishops involved. All in all, it seemed like a pretty fair objective assessment, if such a thing is possible.

I got a better appreciation for what happened and why, not that I have any more sympathy for the priests or bishops involved, but I now have a better understanding of how such a thing could have happened.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Not to excuse this - but the abuse happened in a different time, a time when not as much was known about pedophilia. It was thought to be curable.

I draw an analogy with my mother’s chronic illness. She had pneumonia many times in her childhood. Her lungs were scarred because of that, and one of the things that was considered good treatment at the time was removal of the scarred lung. Then, because the body now had a cavity, a fluid filled that space. I had a nurse explain to me that this is a natural process and it happens without any disease process causing it.

But at the time, in the 50’s and 60’s, the practice was to remove this fluid (can’t remember what it’s called). So they did that, more than once. Finally the cavity was empty, so, my mother’s heart enlarged to fill that space, and she died of an enlarged heart.

That was the best practice at the time, but we know more now, and if my mother were here, she’d be getting entirely different treatment. She died at age 46.

So it is with pedophilia. We know more now than we did in previous years. The Catholic Church is not the only institution that has struggled to get pedophiles out of its ranks - any organization that deals with children has the same problem. It has nothing to do with the vow of celibacy or that Catholic priests are perverts. It may have to do with the liberalization of society that happened before and after Vatican II, when more homosexual men were admitted into seminary. But we are doing better now at screening these people and keeping them out of the priesthood.

Public school districts certainly DO get sued when a teacher abuses. “Deep pockets” attract lawyers.

 

[portarica]

Not to excuse this - but the abuse happened in a different time, a time when not as much was known about pedophilia. It was thought to be curable.

I draw an analogy with my mother’s chronic illness. She had pneumonia many times in her childhood. Her lungs were scarred because of that, and one of the things that was considered good treatment at the time was removal of the scarred lung. Then, because the body now had a cavity, a fluid filled that space. I had a nurse explain to me that this is a natural process and it happens without any disease process causing it.

But at the time, in the 50’s and 60’s, the practice was to remove this fluid (can’t remember what it’s called). So they did that, more than once. Finally the cavity was empty, so, my mother’s heart enlarged to fill that space, and she died of an enlarged heart.

That was the best practice at the time, but we know more now, and if my mother were here, she’d be getting entirely different treatment. She died at age 46.

So it is with pedophilia. We know more now than we did in previous years. The Catholic Church is not the only institution that has struggled to get pedophiles out of its ranks - any organization that deals with children has the same problem. It has nothing to do with the vow of celibacy or that Catholic priests are perverts. It may have to do with the liberalization of society that happened before and after Vatican II, when more homosexual men were admitted into seminary. But we are doing better now at screening these people and keeping them out of the priesthood.

Public school districts certainly DO get sued when a teacher abuses. “Deep pockets” attract lawyers.

The excuse of not knowing about the persistence of pedophilia is a straw man argument. The church in the US continued to transfer priests after that was discounted and more horribly transferred priests who did not receive clearance from the treatment centers .

The church also didn’t send all the abusers to treatment .

As for the gay aspect, these guys were generally in the seminary before V2 and were in seminaries run by pre V2 clergy. That is another straw man arguement. And gay people have been priests and bishops and likely popes for centuries so it is no excuse. What is horrible is that abuse was condoned and tolerated and kept secret for centuries.

To stop it, all one pope had to say was if a priest abuses any one they are out of the priesthood and if a priest , bishop or a cardinal engaged in deceit about abuse , they are out immediately as well. That could have been J23 through to JP2 or B16, but they all remained silent.

Peace

 

[Aboveallbereal]

One thing we could do is stop accepting the media constructed notion that the Church had a paedophilia problem. Paedophilia was relatively uncommon and certainly no more common than within any professional group. What the Church had was a serious and unpoliced culture of enabling homosexual ephebophilia the sexual attraction to pubescent and post pubescent boys.

You can’t cure the disease if it is misdiagnosed.

 

[stephe1987]

NOBODY should be left alone with another person’s child. Once this was understood, the sex abuse cases with the Boy Scouts virtually ended. Catholics should adopt this same policy.

And I agree that this has been misdiagnosed. Pedophilia refers to prepubescent boys, and something like 90% of the cases are boys between age 12 and the age of consent, so it is actually a case of priest experiencing SSA toward adolescents, not sexual attraction to children.

 

[portarica]

One thing we could do is stop accepting the media constructed notion that the Church had a paedophilia problem. Paedophilia was relatively uncommon and certainly no more common than within any professional group. What the Church had was a serious and unpoliced culture of enabling homosexual ephebophilia the sexual attraction to pubescent and post pubescent boys.

You can’t cure the disease if it is misdiagnosed.

You are right, the rate of abusers was statistically in the neighborhood of society in general.

The biggest issue is that there were few if any priests , bishops or popes that didn’t condone abuse and engage in subterfuge about abuse.

And you are so right about ephebophilia, it so much better to rape a 13 year old than an eight year old. We are so fortunate that our priests were in some instances able to remain in long term abusive relationships with their victims.

Peace

 

[otjm]

Well, the point of this thread is that the bishop should be automatically suspended and investigated with the priest-abuser.

We need to protect the children, and the Church is not bound by the due process of the courts.

The whole point is to remove bishops who were abetting the priests AND to serve as a deterrent to bishops protecting priests in the future.

Their “brotherly” love cannot countenance this betrayal of the priestly vows. The bishop is supposed to be connected to his diocese in a very strong way, to the people, as well as to the priests.

That hat they wear is supposed to indicate that they are spotless and above reproach. The bishops should know what’s going on in their diocese.

You have failed to show any logical reason why a superior should be automatically suspended. Unless there is some showing that the bishop or superior either knew, or had reason to know that the priest would abuse, there is simply no grounds to suspend the superior.

The bishops who were in the “wrong” by moving priests at times were told by the psychologists that the priest had been treated and was now safe. What should the bishop hav done at that point/ You are making wild presumptions with little knowledge of the complexity of the issues.

Note: I am not defending all bishops; some of them need to come to an accounting. Others were innocent of any intentional wrong. Playing Monday morning quarterback after you have the opportunity to look back on the whole issue is not the same as having to make a decision at the moment, without the benefit of hind-sight.

 

[otjm]

That hat they wear is supposed to indicate that they are spotless and above reproach. The bishops should know what’s going on in their diocese.

that is one of the more naive statements to be made this week. Maybe this month…

No bishop is physically capable of micromanaging his diocese. Period. And the Church itself does not engage in micromanaging.

 

[portarica]

that is one of the more naive statements to be made this week. Maybe this month…

No bishop is physically capable of micromanaging his diocese. Period. And the Church itself does not engage in micromanaging.

Knowing what’s going on doesn’t mean micromanaging.

Knowing what’s going on is what enables one to manage well.

And to suggest the church didn’t know what was going on is the naive statement. The Vatican was approving million dollar settlements well before the crisis exploded in Boston.

Peace

 

[Newbie2]

NOBODY should be left alone with another person’s child. Once this was understood, the sex abuse cases with the Boy Scouts virtually ended. Catholics should adopt this same policy.
And I agree that this has been misdiagnosed. Pedophilia refers to prepubescent boys, and something like 90% of the cases are boys between age 12 and the age of consent, so it is actually a case of priest experiencing SSA toward adolescents, not sexual attraction to children.

We do…at least now.

And that was indeed part of the problem. Who could be more trustworthy than a Priest, so was thought. And we laity had a right to think that way.

Unfortunately, now every priest is treated with at least some degree of suspicion. Too bad we cannot go back and correct mistakes of the past.

The problem seems to be under control now, but we know now to be more vigilant. Satan works cleverly in ways we do not suspect.

 

[manualman]

The first thing this issue always needs is perspective. Abuse of minors happens EVERYWHERE that adults are given authority over children and opportunities to be alone with them. That is a sad fact, but a fact nevertheless. The lesson of this scandal is NOT that priests are abusers, but that EVEN priests can be abusers. These pervs are everywhere! Humans are capable of horrendous sin and commit it far more often than we’d like to believe. That’s why we needed saving, remember?

Catholics (priests and laymen) are products of the culture that raises us. IMO the reason the catholic scandal boiled to the surface now goes back decades. For probably 20+ years before Vatican II even there was an increasing phenomenon of defiance of authority and rebellion. Guys like Fr. Charles Curran, Archbishop Bugnini and Hans Kung didn’t just pop into sedition overnight. It was a gradual process that had nothing specifically to do with Vatican II and everything to do with larger cultural suspicion of authority and tradition that came after the horrors of World War II.

There came be be a culture of defiance and disobedience in the Church not altogether different than that which was building simultaneously in the larger culture. The same sort of wink/nod theology that people like Fr. Curran brought to the contraception issue was an approach that was being taken towards sexuality as a whole. Bishops, to their shame, failed to recognize and confront the threat (I’m still talking 50’s and 60’s here, mind you) or were part of it themselves. Ideas crept into the Church that should have been illuminated and confronted as evil, but were ignored and allowed to fester. The bishops failed to recognize that chaste priests had to be MORE than just celibate and they settled for celibate. But celibacy doesn’t and cannot be if a disordered sexual worldview is at work in the mind of the man trying to remain celibate. But for far too long, celibacy was seen as a negative committment (don’t do it) rather than a positive one (a giving of one’s self and manhod to the glory and service of Christ in the form of the bride: the Church).

That neglect of the real meaning of chastity combined with the avante garde disdain for the “restrictive church teachings on sexuality of the past” combined into a toxic stew. Look at the statistics. How many priests left the priesthood over celibacy? How many secretly broke their promise of celibacy? Enormous numbers. Add in a poorly developed understanding of same sex attraction (just cram it down and pretend it isn’t there) and a seminary environment that no longer put any emphasis on healthy chastity and it was inevitable that this would happen.

The bishops had allowed a culture of sexual dissent to become established in the priesthood and had, as a result, failed to screen/form seminarians for the ability to live celibacy in a holy and positive way. They left the gate to the sheep fold wide open and later wondered how the wolves got in? In some cases the bishops themselves were the wolves (cough - Weakland - cough).

There has been a dawning of recognition in many places. Newly ordained priests in my diocese (Rockford, IL) sure seem to get it. You can tell by what they say in confession about issues of sexuality. It IS about the bishops, but not in the way most people seem to think. It’s not that they need to be better policemen. They needed to be better shepherds. Then there’s less to police in the first place.

We must resist the temptation to regard abuser priests as cartoon villians. These are human beings and I really don’t believe that the vast majority of them entered the seminary specifically and consciously for the selection of victims that would eventually result. I believe they were flawed human being like the rest of us who were simply unable and unprepared to handle the temptations that came there way and there was nobody doing the things that should have been done to keep them out of those temptations in the first place. Don’t misunderstand me, they abusers aren’t victims here. But neither are they cartoon villians. What they became happened slowly in a process that should have been recognized along the way. And one that could have been prevented if those doing the forming hadn’t largely abandoned or distorted the authentic sexuality teachings of the Church.

 

[otjm]

Knowing what’s going on doesn’t mean micromanaging.

Knowing what’s going on is what enables one to manage well.

And to suggest the church didn’t know what was going on is the naive statement. The Vatican was approving million dollar settlements well before the crisis exploded in Boston.

Peace

My comment was directed to the other poster and should be taken within the confines of their suggestion.

I am far more aware of the issues than you may think. I have practiced law, actually tried cases (other types) with one of the lead attorneys in cases in our archdiocese and spoken with him concerning some of the sex abuse cases, rode to school in the early 1960’s with the first sex abuser priest to be indicted in our state (no, I was not abused), and have followed the issue fairly closely sine the 1980’s.

People are welcome to discuss the issue. The sad part of all too many of the discussions are that they (the discussions) are all too often held in ignorance of almost any facts other than the few tidbits that have come out in the press. And the press is notorious for its attitude towards the Church; presuming that there will be an unbiased reporting of actual facts (including exculpatory facts) is to live in a fairytale world.

Like any human activity, good or bad, there are many complexities. I in no way make any excuses or apologies for bishops and it is my personal opinion that the Church had to go through the cleansing of multi million dollar lawsuits before the Church - bishops, cardinals, priests, orders of men and parishoners - would get a grip on what had been happening, and what they had to do.

On the other hand, it is naivety to suggest that a bishop will know much of what is going on in his diocese. He has staff to take care of innumerable details, a staff that often is loyal to a fault to the bishop and often sees (and not always incorrectly) that part of their job is to protect the bishop from whatever problem is “out there”. Further, in terms of size, geography, and the myriad details a bishop must deal with, he simply is not going to know what is going on in each and every parish, or with each and every priest.

Some bishops started to deal with the issue differently in the 1980’s; more got on board as time went on. All are on board now to some extent. To those who knew, had sufficient information to act and failed to act, I would have no problem with the Church doing something and I think it should. However, the poster’s comments are extremely out of line with any sense of justice, common law, criminal law, Canon law, or what the word “charity” means as the Gospels teach us. There has to be some showing tht the bishop knew or had reason to know what the priest was doing, to hold the bishop somehow responsible. The fact that a crime occurred while the priest was one in that diocese is not grounds to hold the bishop responsible, simply because he was bishop.

Complex question never have lent themselves to simple answers, and never will.

 

[otjm]

The first thing this issue always needs is perspective. Abuse of minors happens EVERYWHERE that adults are given authority over children and opportunities to be alone with them. That is a sad fact, but a fact nevertheless. The lesson of this scandal is NOT that priests are abusers, but that EVEN priests can be abusers. These pervs are everywhere! Humans are capable of horrendous sin and commit it far more often than we’d like to believe. That’s why we needed saving, remember?

Catholics (priests and laymen) are products of the culture that raises us. IMO the reason the catholic scandal boiled to the surface now goes back decades. For probably 20+ years before Vatican II even there was an increasing phenomenon of defiance of authority and rebellion. Guys like Fr. Charles Curran, Archbishop Bugnini and Hans Kung didn’t just pop into sedition overnight. It was a gradual process that had nothing specifically to do with Vatican II and everything to do with larger cultural suspicion of authority and tradition that came after the horrors of World War II.

There came be be a culture of defiance and disobedience in the Church not altogether different than that which was building simultaneously in the larger culture. The same sort of wink/nod theology that people like Fr. Curran brought to the contraception issue was an approach that was being taken towards sexuality as a whole. Bishops, to their shame, failed to recognize and confront the threat (I’m still talking 50’s and 60’s here, mind you) or were part of it themselves. Ideas crept into the Church that should have been illuminated and confronted as evil, but were ignored and allowed to fester. The bishops failed to recognize that chaste priests had to be MORE than just celibate and they settled for celibate. But celibacy doesn’t and cannot be if a disordered sexual worldview is at work in the mind of the man trying to remain celibate. But for far too long, celibacy was seen as a negative committment (don’t do it) rather than a positive one (a giving of one’s self and manhod to the glory and service of Christ in the form of the bride: the Church).

That neglect of the real meaning of chastity combined with the avante garde disdain for the “restrictive church teachings on sexuality of the past” combined into a toxic stew. Look at the statistics. How many priests left the priesthood over celibacy? How many secretly broke their promise of celibacy? Enormous numbers. Add in a poorly developed understanding of same sex attraction (just cram it down and pretend it isn’t there) and a seminary environment that no longer put any emphasis on healthy chastity and it was inevitable that this would happen.

The bishops had allowed a culture of sexual dissent to become established in the priesthood and had, as a result, failed to screen/form seminarians for the ability to live celibacy in a holy and positive way. They left the gate to the sheep fold wide open and later wondered how the wolves got in? In some cases the bishops themselves were the wolves (cough - Weakland - cough).

There has been a dawning of recognition in many places. Newly ordained priests in my diocese (Rockford, IL) sure seem to get it. You can tell by what they say in confession about issues of sexuality. It IS about the bishops, but not in the way most people seem to think. It’s not that they need to be better policemen. They needed to be better shepherds. Then there’s less to police in the first place.

We must resist the temptation to regard abuser priests as cartoon villians. These are human beings and I really don’t believe that the vast majority of them entered the seminary specifically and consciously for the selection of victims that would eventually result. I believe they were flawed human being like the rest of us who were simply unable and unprepared to handle the temptations that came there way and there was nobody doing the things that should have been done to keep them out of those temptations in the first place. Don’t misunderstand me, they abusers aren’t victims here. But neither are they cartoon villians. What they became happened slowly in a process that should have been recognized along the way. And one that could have been prevented if those doing the forming hadn’t largely abandoned or distorted the authentic sexuality teachings of the Church.

One of the best posts I have read on the matter.

 

[portarica]

My comment was directed to the other poster and should be taken within the confines of their suggestion.

I am far more aware of the issues than you may think. I have practiced law, actually tried cases (other types) with one of the lead attorneys in cases in our archdiocese and spoken with him concerning some of the sex abuse cases, rode to school in the early 1960’s with the first sex abuser priest to be indicted in our state (no, I was not abused), and have followed the issue fairly closely sine the 1980’s.

People are welcome to discuss the issue. The sad part of all too many of the discussions are that they (the discussions) are all too often held in ignorance of almost any facts other than the few tidbits that have come out in the press. And the press is notorious for its attitude towards the Church; presuming that there will be an unbiased reporting of actual facts (including exculpatory facts) is to live in a fairytale world.

Like any human activity, good or bad, there are many complexities. I in no way make any excuses or apologies for bishops and it is my personal opinion that the Church had to go through the cleansing of multi million dollar lawsuits before the Church - bishops, cardinals, priests, orders of men and parishoners - would get a grip on what had been happening, and what they had to do.

On the other hand, it is naivety to suggest that a bishop will know much of what is going on in his diocese. He has staff to take care of innumerable details, a staff that often is loyal to a fault to the bishop and often sees (and not always incorrectly) that part of their job is to protect the bishop from whatever problem is “out there”. Further, in terms of size, geography, and the myriad details a bishop must deal with, he simply is not going to know what is going on in each and every parish, or with each and every priest.

Some bishops started to deal with the issue differently in the 1980’s; more got on board as time went on. All are on board now to some extent. To those who knew, had sufficient information to act and failed to act, I would have no problem with the Church doing something and I think it should. However, the poster’s comments are extremely out of line with any sense of justice, common law, criminal law, Canon law, or what the word “charity” means as the Gospels teach us. There has to be some showing tht the bishop knew or had reason to know what the priest was doing, to hold the bishop somehow responsible. The fact that a crime occurred while the priest was one in that diocese is not grounds to hold the bishop responsible, simply because he was bishop.

Complex question never have lent themselves to simple answers, and never will.

Since you are an attorney then you know that ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

And furthermore the earthly legal standards fall far short of what Jesus told the shepherds to do. That is why the church plays the game on two different planes, the first is to stymie the earthly victims with the heavenly requisites and then to defend the abusers with all the wherewithal the legal heavyweights can bring to bear.

Since you have been involved, you know how the church has lobbied through the ages in a legislative manner and with the authorities on individual cases to let them handle things “outside” of the judicial system.

And what that allowed was the notice from victims and mothers to bishops about abuse to be ignored. If just one bishop forwarded to the pope just one letter about the torment a mother goes through when her child is abused by a priest , there could not have been a faithful pope who could have ignored her cries for help .

If just one pope had the courage to read those letters or if just one bishop had the courage to act upon one of those letters, the church could have saved billions, kids wouldn’t have hung themselves and mothers could be buried in the comfort of knowing their church didn’t desert them and their children.

But a bishop can’t be expected to deal with that, can they? They are just too busy doing all the other more important work of the church . You know all the stuff that couldn’t be put aside to help out some kids or altar boys. So much more important stuff that couldn’t be delegated to free up 5 or 10 minutes to get the ball rolling. The bishop couldn’t possible put off a haircut for an extra week to schedule 20 minutes with an abuse victim.

I find the defense of the church’s actions to be so absurd. Its just unfathomable that what went on was allowed to go on.

Peace